Re: Violence Is Cultured in Our Youth By Example?
- Fred McGalliard wrote:
> From: Fred McGalliard <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...>[snip]
> I spent aStudied to be a teacher. Ah, there we have the problem ;-) .
> lot of time learning how to raise my kids and I also studied as a
> teacher early on. I think we have a lot of oversimplified views of how
> to raise kids.
The militant teaching profession, along with those darned social workers
and godless university professors have been gathering socialist propaganda
for years and putting it into their teaching courses. Training to be a teacher
gives you a false sense of knowledge, a false sense of having the truth,
in my opinion. In this country the teachers and the social workers have,
in my and many other people's opinions, done their darndest to undermine
parental authority, even police authority. Just ask them. In Canada,
they'll tell you! What the police want is "if you do the crime you get the
punishment". They also want to have the authority to physically take
kids off the streets and send them home. But these social workers
and teachers have indoctrinated the kids with the idea that if they don't
like discipline and don't like what their parents tell them to do (or not do)
that they can just make up their own minds and they don't have to
obey. THAT'S what the teachers and social workers have done!
And that, my friends, is truly evil. They have told the kids their
rights without teaching them their God-given responsibilities as kids.
Do you know what your parental rights are in Canada? You have
the right to know that your child is safe. That's all. You have no
right to know where he/she is, nor with whom your child is
associating, nor do you have the right to go fetch them and bring
them home if they don't want to come home. And that was
told to me by a member of the city police force, in uniform.
And that is truly evil.
> Face it, a kid, even at 5, is the most complex piece ofWhat do you do? Could corporal punishment be the answer ?
> equipment you will ever tinker with. You have to feed it right, exercise
> it right, and give it your love and attention. Works great when your kid
> turns out to be one of the easy to raise "cheer leaders". But what do
> you do when they are the hard ones that can be either juvinile
> delenquents or the bold leaders who point out our faults?
Indeed you have expressed the problem well.. Environment counts,
but as is the purpose of reproduction by means of sex, the genes are
all shuffled at conception for the specific means of generating variety
in the species. And children do arise who are of a different makeup,
a different mental patterns than their parents, or to put it plainly, mutated,
although these mutations *may* not be obvious and there really are no
tests for them that are any good. The brain is a physical organ and
such mutations happen to it too. Or, as has been said here before,
there are environmental and nutritional factors in the mother's life
that could cause brain damage to the unborn child.
>Then you have"Whom the father loves he disciplines". They are inseparable.
>to learn the difference between dicipline and love.
Love *includes* discipline, but discipline does not necessarily
>Too often you findI think 14 is more like it, when reason does not work and the
>that all the advice you get is simply wrong. I think you would find it
>safer, and wiser, to never strike your child after the age of 3,
>regardless. It is just too easy to do for the wrong reasons, and to
>achieve the wrong effects.
theme is just general disrespect for laws or parental authority.
BEFORE ANY PUNISHMENT IS ADMINISTERED, THE
CHILD MUST BE CONVICTED AND HE MUST UNDERSTAND
THAT HE HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF BREAKING THE RULES
WITHOUT GOOD REASON.
And boy they'll try to fool ya! They'll lie and exaggerate like a pro.
Seems to be born in them. The parent's job is to get at the real
truth. The parent must instill in the child that the child's credibility
is critically important. They must be taught to protect and guard
their credibility. Thus they must be taught, by whatever means
necessary, not to lie to their parents. But what do TV shows like
Friends, and Three's Company teach the pre-teens? It teaches
them that everything is about sex and lying to each other. Seemingly
harmless and funny. So we sit back like those frogs in the water.
We are unaware of the subtleties that influence our children's
minds in the wrong direction. So, when a child is caught lying,
punishment is in order. It is one of the first signs of trouble.
The parent(s) are the judges. That's their job, and these darned
teachers and social workers have done their best to short-circuit
or nullify the God-given authority that the parents have, and society,
being, as previously illustrated, 'frogs on the stove' has let them
sneak it by. Just because there are a few bad parents out there,
these new laws take away every parent's God-given authority in
this godless society.
And don't talk to me about the socialist's whine of poverty, illness
and hardship to the kids. There was plenty of these things in the
old days and kids were far better behaved then.. Maybe I would
buy the argument that overcrowding is a problem with today's kids.
... Fred Bach music@... Opinions are my own.
- coexusa wrote:
> Fred McGalliard wrote:The citizens demand that their legeslaters listen to them, and support
> >Right now, as I read it, the citizens are the source of the corruption
> >in our government, and the primary reason that it can't even decide how
> >to tie it's own shoe laces, so to speak.
> Please explain what you you mean by the above statement? Which citizens?
> Where? What corruption? Your comment is so "broad sweeping" that I have no
> idea what you are talking about?
their positions, even when their positions are foolishly short sighted.
We pay em well to vote the way we want. Then we bitch like crazy when
they accept money from positions we don't like. We insist they lie to
us, and persistently ignore their wrongdoing as long as we think they
are "taking care" of us. We pay em, we ignore their behavior, we make
use of it and take advantage of it and we accept the cost of it. Are
"we" then, not responsible? Frankly, I doubt that you and I would agree
on any one particular example, but as I see it the politicians, with a
few interesting exceptions, learned their behavior at our feet. We
raised them up this way. It is no good now to complain. When was the
last time we voted for a man who told us what our policies would cost
> First of all, civil war is a fact of history. People revolt when they feelSorry, but there is a big difference between even a few hundred thousand
> that government is oppressing them. Remember the revolutionary war? You
> think that war veterans, grandfathers, patriots who love their country but
> can't stand to see the government continually meddling into the lifes of law
> abiding citizens are "undisciplined rowdies"? Think again, Fred.
folk with short range anti personel weapons and a bad attitude and a
serious army. It takes years to build, equip, and train an army, even
when it is built from folks with some military experience. And you need
several hundred billions worth of tanks, aircraft, copters, and thats
without nukes. But it is more important that you remember, as long as it
is a small scale insurection, you get treated real nice, though you
might not think so. When the gloves come off, your crew faces attack
helicopters with night vision, serious air surpression, heavy combat
equipment, and the support of the rest of the nation. You could slow em
down a bit as they feel you out, but you will not stop them, and if they
want to roll over you, you will not have the opertunity to write your
will after the fighting starts. What are you thinking? And did you
imagine that everyone would just sort of sign up for your little war? If
you can't win the elections, you surely can't win the civil war.
> If you can't let them do it, then you must see that "we" can't, weShoot. What garbage. Socialist Democracy? Where does it say that we
> dare not, let you do it.
> Who is YOU and OUR? Please be specific. Are you dividing us up into
> conservative and liberal? Democrat and Republican? I don't think that way.
> I am not trying to take up arms and change "that same government by force".
> I just want our government to be what the Constitution says it should be, "a
> republic", not a Socialist Democracy which is what we have now.
can't be that in the Constitution? If you don't like the way the supreme
court interprets the constituition, write em about it. Trying to force
your views down everyone elses throats is what our clumsy three
sectioned government is all about. No hot head can quickly bring the
supreme court to heel, nor can a quick insurection among the rightious
in the hinterlands change the government in a day. If you don't like the
way we run our country, feel free to leave. You might let someone know
you are leaving, I suspect there would be a few takers for your place
Understand me, and hear it well, this country is in the sorry state it
is because of us, and for our sake. We damn well better pay more
attention to it, and fix some things. What we call our form of
government, a "socialist democracy" or democratic republic, or whatever,
is a job for junior political scientests. If you want to fix something
that is wrong, tell us what is wrong, and how you want to fix it. We
vote. We can change it. Take up arms to try to change it by force and we
will all come down on you like a ton of lead. You have the vote, you
have access to the means of communication. Use it. And I would suggest
if you want to wage war, you adopt Martin Luther King's tactics. He has
had at least modest success.
> How dare you tell ME what I "dare to consider for use" as a weapon of war.Let's see. I get this right, you stand firmly for arming the black
> I was guaranteed freedom by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I
> won't bother anyone if they don't bother me. So, you want to disarm all the
> US Citizens
panthers, tanks, antiaircraft, cobra helicopters, the whole schmear. Of
course what's left of the Communists would really like some guns as
well, maby a few nukes. Course we would have to disarm the right wing
ginks in the mid west to take away their large terrorist bombs, but I am
sure they would like to be able to confront the panthers with their own
tanks and aircraft. And let's be fair about this. The marajuana
legalization league would like to police it's fields with fully armed
tanks to keep the local police in line. Now, what was that again about
what you would "dare" to do with military grade arms? See, you are not
the only one who just wan't his guns to support his own freedom from an